Update IV (10/3): Read the latest, Message from a “Values Voter.”
Update III (10/2): This post is close to commenting. To discuss the latest on this unfolding mess, go to Mr. Speaker, You Must Resign.
———————————————————–
I thought twice (actually, four times) about blogging this, but what the hey?
I try to avoid salacious stuff, but it’s Friday, so…whatever.
Last night I read that Republican Congressman Mark Foley [6:07 p.m.: He took down his web site.] sent a strange e-mail message to a 16-year-old male page (in response to a recommendation request) and asked what he wanted for his birthday. He also asked the kid for a photo. Foley e-mailed from his AOL account. Why, people were wondering, would a politician rumored to be bisexual homosexual send such an e-mail to a teenaged boy?
So the kid forwards the e-mail to someone in Foley’s office, saying it was “sick sick sick sick sick.” Some people suspected a set up; others said Foley was up to no good. I think he was initiating something with the boy and got caught. Stupid. A man in his position should know better.
Foley’s people said it was customary to request photos from pages who ask for recommendations. But from a private e-mail account? OK. Guess what? Foley’s instant messages to other young male pages have turned up. Rotten luck, mate.
Foley is resigning from the House, and a criminal investigation is in the works.
Stick a fork in him. He’s done.
Addendum: Foley was a founder and co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus. 
Sources:
Bloggers: Sister Toldjah, Confederate Yankee, Hot Air, Daily Pundit, Blue Crab Boulevard, Wizbang Politics, Verum Serum, The Florida Masochist, Outside the Beltway, Suitably Flip…
Also see the Washington Post.
Update (9/30): Self-promotion alert — Last year, I was asked to tell you about a blog aggregator called Blogniscient. I forgot. This morning, I remembered. 
Later…More blogger reactions: Right Wing Nut House, Captain’s Quarters…
Update II (10/1): The Speaker of the House is calling for a criminal investigation. As expected, the blogosphere is swarming all over “Foleygate.” I think I prefer Pagegate, but it’s too late for that. Once a critical mass of bloggers starts using a particular term, it sticks.
Read the latest at Just One Minute and Right Wing Nut House.
Twenty years from now, he will be able to marry a 16 year old boy.
Comment by RaLph — 09.29.06 @ 4:29 pm
Addendum: Foley was a founder and co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus.
Absolutely disgusting. I’m glad he’s gone.
Comment by Jewels — 09.29.06 @ 4:30 pm
Congressman Mark Foley
Full Disclosure- Before commenting I must tell that my wife has met the Congressman’s parents but not Mark Foley himself. The Foleys were at one time parrishoners at the same Roman Catholic Church dear wife and I attend and where DW works as church r…
Trackback by The Florida Masochist — 09.29.06 @ 4:47 pm
Here’s the scoop on US Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-FL) decision to step down from the House over rumors he was soliciting sex from an underage (16 y/o) male page.
Pingback by Sister Toldjah — 09.29.06 @ 4:49 pm
If only more people understood how the devil works. None of us are immune to sin. Sexual immorality is the easiest way to for the devil to claw us into sin and away from God. Although the devil does not even need claw those into sin who will gladly run into it. Sadly, this will give Democrats reason to hold themselves up as superior and give many Republicans moments of feeling superior as well.
We must all watch out for the fall. I wonder what evil the devil is whispering into my ears right now. Lord Jesus help us all.
Comment by Judy — 09.29.06 @ 5:57 pm
Can’t both parties lose this fall?
Comment by Walt Schulte — 09.29.06 @ 6:31 pm
You know, the hyperventilating left would have a whole lot more credibility if they cleaned their own house.
The dem politicians in DC have a long history of sexual misconduct.
‘You can’t be select in claiming the moral high ground.’
Comment by sigmund, carl and alfred — 09.29.06 @ 6:38 pm
Rep. Mark Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Ema
Earlier reporting about Foley’s emails did not make any references to email of a sexually explicit nature, which is why the earlier reporting didn’t catch my attention. This particular report certainly puts those email communications in a different l…
Trackback by A Blog For All — 09.29.06 @ 6:39 pm
Foley Reaction
Reaction to Mark Foley’s emails is as expected. Total and complete disgust. I think it is really sad, too. There is some “questioning of the timing” of the release of the emails and some comparing of the reaction to Foley…
Trackback by Wizbang Politics — 09.29.06 @ 8:04 pm
How awful. Just awful. I am glad he is resigning but it is terrible.
Comment by Randy — 09.29.06 @ 8:09 pm
“The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen’s parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, “We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem,” a reference to the House’s Republican leaders.”
The GOP House Leadership new, and absolutely did nothing. They sat their on their hands while became the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Childrens Caucus.
Comment by james burgess — 09.29.06 @ 9:06 pm
Good Riddance
Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) has resigned in the wake of the disclosure that he had sent sexually explicit internet messages to congressional pages under the age of 18.
Saying he was "deeply sorry," Congressman Mark Foley (R-F…
Trackback by Blue Crab Boulevard — 09.29.06 @ 10:38 pm
Rep. Foley Resigns
I’m glad to see it happen. Trolling the House pages for sex — cyber or real — is unacceptable. Frankly, though, the emails initially seemed pretty tame to me. The Democratic opponent of Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) is calling for…
Trackback by Rhymes With Right — 09.29.06 @ 11:17 pm
“Addendum: Foley was a founder and co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus. :?”
This isn’t surprising to me. Most perps do things like this for 2 reasons. First, to get closer to situations for exploitation, second, for “cover”.
I’m glad he was caught. This is disgusting behavior.
Comment by Tom Blogical — 09.29.06 @ 11:19 pm
Foley Resigns
Foley deservedly should resign and face the potential legal consequences of his actions. I pray that he has been caught before he had a chance to molest any young men and I will also pray for his healing to begin as he faces the consequences of his ac…
Trackback by Wisedove - by Randy Thomas — 09.29.06 @ 11:56 pm
Congressman Turned Predator!
The bad news today is to find out that U.S. Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, who was co-chairman of the House Missing and Exploited Children Caucus, and was involved with a predator preventative bill (I think), has now been found to be a predator hi…
Trackback by Talkwisdom — 09.30.06 @ 12:05 am
It’s appropriate for him to step down after sexually explicit emails to young men. But why didn’t CLINTON step down for sexually explicit BEHAVIOUR with a young woman his daughter’s age?
Double-standard alert!!
Comment by Michele — 09.30.06 @ 12:30 am
Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley is a Nasty Hypocrite!
He’s been busted and he knows it! Here’s the statement on his old campaign web site. (He’s already taken down his congressional web site.)
“Today I have delivered a letter to the Speaker of the House informing him of my deci…
Trackback by Independent Conservative — 09.30.06 @ 1:18 am
I agree with #1 RaLph–with the changes of definitions that are happening, I think that within 20 years (or more, but eventually) the people who fight for exploitation of kids will be the minority. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and have even told some people, but they always point out that people are busted for this type of disgusting behavior. However, think about what was unacceptable before that is now acceptable. There are no limits to humanity’s darkness.
Comment by mj — 09.30.06 @ 1:33 am
“However, think about what was unacceptable before that is now acceptable.”
I prefer to think of what was acceptable then, and unnacceptable now.
Acceptable then:
Beating women, ‘marrying’ minors, rape, owning slaves, killing ‘natives’, witches, blacks, homosexuals, electrocuting/lobotomizing social ‘deviants’, mentally impaired, segregation, stoning, ‘blacks’/women not being allowed to vote, etc etc.
Unnacceptable now: All the above, *and* paedophilia.
Regards,
John
Comment by JohnD — 09.30.06 @ 5:58 am
“times change and men deteriorate”, sayeth the sage. (and congressmen do ever-stupider things in the pursuit of lust, it seems)
saaaay, speaking of “lobotomizing the mentally ill”, didn’t democrat patriarch joe kennedy do that to his own daughter? just asking….
Comment by ed — 09.30.06 @ 6:04 am
“saaaay, speaking of “lobotomizing the mentally illâ€, didn’t democrat patriarch joe kennedy do that to his own daughter?.
Yep. Horrible story. Although I don’t see what being a Democrat has to do with it, in much the same way as I don’t know what being a Conservative has to do with being a paedophile.
Do we allow that people may have other bad things going on inside them other than party politics and punditry?
Comment by JohnD — 09.30.06 @ 7:53 am
Hypocrites all – repugnants and moonbats
How do these people get elected?
Comment by El Cid — 09.30.06 @ 8:02 am
As a confirmed and practicing curmudgeon, I say “good” to the Foley mess. “Good” on several counts.
1.) He is a warped soul and can not be looked up to as a leader, no matter what his concomitant gifts.
2.) It appears the Republican leadership played loose and free with their handling of the conduct of a member. That is ever the way in Washington and the Democrats will have them for lunch as a result. They deserve the drubbing.
3.) Republicans hold society to a higher set of values (Judeo-Christian ethic) than do many liberal Democrats. Thus, they have exposed themselves to an extra helping of being tagged hypocrites from the likes of Barney Frank, Teddy Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, etc. Republicans have to be reminded that taking the high road carries responsibilities.
I have one real regret.
There is a young boy who will be dragged through the teeth of the rumor mill, pointed at, avoided, pursued by Barbara Walters and generally thrust into a life of living Hell. He may have been receptive to the Congressman’s overtures, but he is a victim in the national spotlight and that is tragic.
I recall that the Clinton people immediately tried to paint Monica as a “stalker” who compromised poor Slick Willie.
Hopefully, the Republican spin machine will take a vow of silence on this affair and let it play out its twisted and damaging course.
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.30.06 @ 9:05 am
The first thing I thought was how can public officials take such risks? Do they think they’ll never get caught or are above the law? Then, I recalled a recent show on pedophiles. They cannot control themselves and will act out their sick desires regardless of the risks. Throw away the keys on these types.
Comment by dianne — 09.30.06 @ 9:15 am
I agree with judy-Lord help us all. I also appreciate what Heliotrope has to say. I’m sure that the Democrats have been fine-sifting the backgrounds of every Republican candidate. But they are not to blame for this mess-that is all on Foley himself.
The Democrats may have been sitting on this information for awhile-”October Surprizes” show up in every election.
I keep calling for term limits every time something like this happens. Or Ted Kennedy opens his mouth.
This is ‘bad’ for the Republicans, but a nightmare for the kid, all of the kids and their families.
I’m glad that he stepped down. May he step quickly into a courtroom and possibly a jail cell.
Comment by Doug — 09.30.06 @ 10:24 am
To #17.
How can you compare Clinton to Foley?
Clinton had sex with an adult (out of wedlock, but still, an adult– nothing illegal about that). Clinton was only guilty of lying about it in a deposition, there was nothing illegal about the sexual conduct itself.
Foley is a pedophile, preying on BOYS. That sexual conduct is illegal. Hastert and Boehner allowed him to continue on in his job, and allowed him to be on some commission that works with CHILDREN!!! They need to be locked up too.
No comparison.
Comment by go1 — 09.30.06 @ 10:30 am
# 27 go1 says there is no comparison between Foley and Clinton.
Just to be a stick in the mud: the comparison is fine. Both engaged in satisfying his specific sexual proclivity/lust.
Now whether they are equally heinous is arguable. One may rise to a greater sense of rage than the other.
I am sure Clinton has compared his conquests. Some sought him out, some he sought out and at least one claims to have been raped. He can still compare them in terms of gratification, but a jury might compare them differently.
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.30.06 @ 12:21 pm
Post #22: Yes, Joe Kennedy is evil. I don’t have any proof, but I’ve always believed that Joe Kennedy molested his daughter, Rosemary, and they put her in an Institution, and gave her a lobotomy to shut her up, and keep her quiet.
It’s one of the most sinister and depraved things, and again, I’ve no proof….but I’ve never believed the official story coming out of the Kennedy camp about Rosemary’s so-called ‘mental illness’.
Obviously don’t like the Kennedys!
___________________________________________
Post #27: Clinton may very well have engaged in illegal conduct if he was trading jobs and career advancement in exchange for sexual favors.
At the least, I believe it’s a Government violation of some sort.
And, apparently, what with the way they were all, at taxpayer expense—-scrambling to come up with new, and better, employment for Lewinsky….it does seem like a sex-in-exchange-for-employment type deal!
Comment by Glamchild — 09.30.06 @ 2:15 pm
That’s a whole lot of spinning Glamchild. He MAY VERY WELL have been committing a GOVT VIOLATION which is kind of like trying to solicit a minor which is kind of like peeing in the work coffee pot. People don’t go to jail for affairs, but they do for soliciting minors. So stop with the spin, they aren’t the same thing. One is a crime, and one isn’t, its that simple.
And I love the Rosemary Kennedy spiel (which came out of nowhere), with the great “I have no proof” line at the end. I personally believe that Bush called Saddam who emailed Kofi Annan who text messaged Bin Laden to blow up the World Trade Center, but I have no proof.
Comment by Derrick — 09.30.06 @ 3:10 pm
“Just to be a stick in the mud: the comparison is fine. Both engaged in satisfying his specific sexual proclivity/lust.
Now whether they are equally heinous is arguable. One may rise to a greater sense of rage than the other.”
Arguable by moral equivalency peddlers perhaps…pedophilia is always going to be more harmful than sex between consenting adults, all things being equal. This is still an “affair,” still sex out of wedlock, etc. etc…
Your basis for comparison is flawed. A married politican with a satisfying sex life is also “satisfying his/her specific sexual proclivity/lust.” Basically, the only connection between Clinton and this fellow is that both incidents involved sex with public figures.
Comment by tvd — 09.30.06 @ 5:01 pm
#31 Nice try, but no cigar. Both are sex acts; thus they are comparable: capable of being compared.
It is really not very high up on the semantics scale to understand the concept of comparisons.
You can compare your wood-chip stuffed mattress with a Tempurpedic Mattress. You can note their similarities and their differences. You can even create a scale of measurement to rate the comparisons. But you are comparing them.
Words have meanings. A poster said there is no comparison between Clinton’s romps and Foley’s stupidity. Wrong.
Both you and that poster have read degree and equality into the idea of comparison. It is not there.
You say: “Basically, the only connection between Clinton and this fellow is that both incidents involved sex with public figures.”
The whole public figure identification is superfluous. It is why we know about them; the comparison lies solely in the satisfaction of sex drives.
By the by, Congressman Gerry Studds, Democrat Mass. was censured by the House for having sex with a page. He claimed that it was a matter of consenting adults. He went on to be elected several more times. You can also compare the Foley case with the Studds case.
Charging flawed thinking while misunderstanding basic definitions is not productive.
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.30.06 @ 5:49 pm
The Perfect Blogstorm
Whew! Nothing like a train load of steamy Ephebophilia hot-chat messages to kick the 2006 Elections into a froth heaped higher than the foam on a Starbucks’ Double Soy Cappuccino. All in all the Mark Foley Folly is whipping itself up into a frenzy. A s…
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 09.30.06 @ 6:21 pm
With Foley, it could be the tip of the iceberg. Investigators of child pornography have found a pattern of pedophiles who seek or other pedophiles and network. Especially homosexual men, who at 2.5% of the population, account for 30% of the “market” for child pornography and adolescent prostitution.
Homosexual predators - the infamous “chickenhawks” and pederasts of man-boy love - are well known to network. So if there is an honest, rigorous investigation now that that waste of a Speaker can’t block it anymore - you may see other man-boy love proponents on the Hill “outed”.
Comment by Chris Ford — 10.01.06 @ 1:26 am
This is all liberal chatters have been talking about in the political chat rooms. It’s going to be awhile before they get tired of this story.
Comment by Tyrone — 10.01.06 @ 2:14 am
The fact Congress, controlled by Republicans, chose a ‘Vatican’ cover-up for almost a year, and very likely would have never exposed it if they themselves were not ‘outed’, add double disgust and damage to conservative causes.
Add this to the other scandals under their leadership, I think they deserved to be fired by conservatives in the next election.
Comment by Jim R — 10.01.06 @ 9:03 am
That would be ‘deserve’ not ‘deserved’.
Add to the disgust, these creeps had this creep assigned to lead a committee on exploited children. There is just no excuse possible for it.
Comment by Jim R — 10.01.06 @ 9:06 am
Example of a change in definition: when women want the pregnancy, the life growing inside them is a forthcoming baby. When they don’t want it, they don’t describe it that way.
Comment by mj — 10.01.06 @ 9:56 am
Can anyone tell me “who” is the equivalent of “Human Resources” in the House of Representatives? In most corporations, if there was a charge of sexual harrassment, any manager would be required to report the allegation to HR and HR would then conduct an investigation and take appropriate action. Was Hastert the responsible party to investigate and take action?
Comment by dianne — 10.01.06 @ 10:12 am
A Question On The Foley Affair
When I first read about the emails by Rep. Mark Foley to a congressional page, I dismissed the matter as unimportant and not worthy of comment. After all, this was not a stranger seeking out kids on the internet –…
Trackback by Rhymes With Right — 10.01.06 @ 10:54 am
Whoa!, there hoss! There are several threads to follow in the Foley mess and to discover how (if at all) they are connected.
Thread #1 is what exactly did Foley do and when did he do it?Strand from Thread #1 is did Foley break any laws?
Thread #2 is how much did the leadership know and when did they know it? Strand from Thread #2 is did they engage in any form of cover-up?
Thread #3 is did Foley have the right to a presumption of innocence? Strand of thread #3 is was there a point where his actions outweighed the presumption of innocence and when did that occur?
Thread #4 is the Gerry Studds precedent and the determination of how the Foley evidence parallels or differs from the precedent.
Thread #5 is the political season and the possible party balance shift in the House of Representative. Strand of Thread #5 is whether Democrats are more driven by outrage or opportunity? Strand of Thread #5 is are Republicans driven by a fear of losing the House?
Congress can not keep from leaking sensitive secrets concerning the national security. How could they ever sit down and honestly examine ethics charges in a room full of A-type personalities all jockeying for a political advantage?
Comment by Heliotrope — 10.01.06 @ 11:07 am
Heliotrope sounds like he was the one advising the House Leadership on how to cover….er, handle, the damage.
How many times does it take for supposedly intelligent people to learn the cover does more harm that the offense in the long run. What was that definition of insanity again…..anyone?
Comment by Jim R — 10.01.06 @ 11:49 am
#42 Jim R:
And Gerry Studds had sex with a page and only suffered censure of the House because………………? I am breathlessly awaiting your justification.
I do not want Foley in the House. Barney Frank doesn’t belong there either. Alcee Hastings is no pillar of rectitude. There is a Senator who drowned a girl and bought his way to eternal election. Another Senator recruited for the KKK and rose to become the leader of the Senate. I don’t want them there either. They stink up the place.
But, Foley and the Republican leadership are due the chance to reveal what took place. The news only hit on Friday and nobody has got much of the story yet. If you want to shoot Foley and charge the leadership with cover up, go ahead. It only shows how easily you excuse the Democrat trash and how readily you will shoot to kill the Republicans without any clear knowledge of the case at hand.
Democrats spin for their problem representatives and keep reelecting them. Republicans cut the cancer out.
I can’t wait to read the definitive Democrat guide to “it’s just about sex.” Clinton can write the intro.
Comment by Heliotrope — 10.01.06 @ 3:05 pm
Studds was 33-34 years ago when he had his affair. You got anything more recent? . . . Like maybe these ones: http://www.armchairsubversive.com/
Comment by go1 — 10.01.06 @ 4:18 pm
Check back over at Hot Air to see Allah’s updates on this scandal, and how it had developed.
Comment by Doug — 10.01.06 @ 5:08 pm
#44 go1:
You have really gone deep into the septic tank for this site. What’s the matter, you can’t find anything to offset Kennedy, Frank, Hastings, Byrd, Clinton, et. al?
Is there a Republican site that trashes the Democrat through the idiocy of their pea-brained supporters? I suppose, but I wouldn’t give it the time of day.
Gerry Studds and Barney Frank and Bill Clinton still stand as poster boys for Democratic party double standards.
The fact that you would even recommend this site is proof of your inane bigotry. I wouldn’t give most of those “Republicans” cab fare to a rehabilitation seminar.
You people are really amazing. You set your own hair on fire and then yell “arson”!
Comment by Heliotrope — 10.01.06 @ 9:00 pm
All I can say, is the rest of the world are (probably) hoping that you boys and girls actually take a break from flinging poop at each other.
You know, actually crack a few open around the BBQ, have a laugh, share some non-Nationalist, non-racist, non-partisan humour.
I mean, you do, don’t you?
Comment by JohnD — 10.02.06 @ 4:42 am
Here’s my two cents. The email sent last year was pretty tame, but it Foley was confronted by republicans over it. The email Foley sent back in 1993 is the one that was very explicit. The email Foley sent back in 1993 was recently released, this email is the one that has caused the uproar. Someone held this email for three full years, and then decided to release it a few weeks before the general election. Obviously Foley is sick in the head and needs help,but what would be the purpose of holding on to such an email for that period of time? I believe there should be two investigations. One obviously should be for Foley, but the other investigation should be into who held the 1993 email. This email has put a cloud over the republican party just in time for the election. I truly believe thats what it was intended to do. I have two words for you all.
OCTOBER SURPRISE!!!
If a parent discovered that an adult was sending these types of emails to their son or daughter, do any of you think they would save them for three years and then release them to the police or the media?
Comment by Tyrone — 10.02.06 @ 7:08 am
I meant to say 2003 email not 1993.
Comment by Tyrone — 10.02.06 @ 7:54 am